Creighton Model FertilityCare System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Creighton Model / FertilityCare
Background
Birth control type Behavioral
First use 1980
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use 0.5%
Typical use 3.2%(J Reprod Med 1998;43:495-502)
Usage
Reversibility Immediate
User reminders Accurate instruction & daily charting are key.
Clinic review None
Advantages and disadvantages
STD protection No
Period advantages Prediction
Weight gain No
Benefits Low direct cost;
no side effects;
in accord with Catholic teachings;
may be used to aid pregnancy achievement

The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (Creighton Model, FertilityCare, CrMS) is a form of natural family planning which involves identifying the fertile period during a woman's menstrual cycle. The Creighton Model was developed by Dr Thomas Hilgers, the founder and director of the Pope Paul VI Institute. This model, like the Billings ovulation method, is based on observations of cervical mucus to track fertility.

Conceptual basis[edit]

Hilgers describes the Creighton Model as being based on "a standardized modification of the Billings ovulation method", which was developed by John and Evelyn Billings in the 1960s.[1] The Billingses issued a paper refuting the claim that the CrMS represents a standardization of the BOM.[2] They are two different methods and should not be seen as interchangeable.

Effectiveness[edit]

No large clinical trials have been performed comparing ART and NaProTechnology. Only observational one-arm studies have been published so far.[3][4] In the larger of these two studies, 75% of couples trying to conceive received additional hormonal stimulation such as clomiphene.[3]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Creighton Model
  2. ^ Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method
  3. ^ a b Stanford, J. B.; Parnell, T. A.; Boyle, P. C. (2008). "Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice". The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 21 (5): 375–84. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239. PMID 18772291. 
  4. ^ Tham, Elizabeth; Schliep, Karen; Stanford, Joseph (2012). "Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice". Canadian Family Physician Médecin De Famille Canadien 58 (5): e267–74. PMC 3352813. PMID 22734170. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Hilgers, Thomas W.,M.D., The NaPro Technology Revolution: unleashing the Power in a Woman's Cycle. New York: Beaufort Books, 2010. Print.
  • Hilgers, Thomas W. The Medical & Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute, 2004. N. pag. Print.
  • Moore, Keith L., T,V.N Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia. Before we are Born Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., 2013. Print.
  • Unleashing the Power of a Woman's Cycle. Pope Paul VI Institute, 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. <http://www.naprotechnology.com/index.html>.
  • Jemelka, B. E., & Parker, D. W., & Mirkes, R. (2013). State of the Art and Science NapProTECHNOLOGY and Conscientious OB/GYN Medicine. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 15. Retrieved from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2013/03/stas1-1303.html
  • Hilgers, T. W. (2011). The New Women’s Health Science of NaProTECHNOLOGY. Archives of Perinatal Medicine, 17(4). Retrieved from http://www.fertilitycare.net/documents/APM174-2-Hilgers.pdf
  • Stanford, J. B.; Parnell, T. A.; Boyle, P. C. (2008). "Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice". The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 21 (5): 375–84. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239. PMID 18772291. 
  • J Reprod Med 1998;43:495-502

External links[edit]